Talk:Narragansett land claim

Comments on article
Hi,

I think this article is very interesting, (in fact this whole topic, which I'd never really thought much about before) but I'm not a legal person. I'm wondering if some of the terminology couldn't be put in lay terms, even though you have them linked. I'm fairly sophisticated about the law for a lay person, but I'm not willing to click all the links and try to retain the information as I proceed through the article. I'm hoping you understand what I'm meaning here. That is, that the article should be aimed at the general reader and not written for attorneys only.

This is what's preventing me from reviewing it as a GA. I have great respect for your writing.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific about the terminology which troubles you? If it can be changed without losing meaning, I will do so; otherwise, I will try to explain it in the article as much as can be done without distracting from the topic at hand. Savidan 02:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For example, I changed "conveyances" to the more accessible "land transfers". That seemed to be ok with you, right? I looked at "affirmative defenses and other defenses" and toyed with just using "defenses" as less dense but retaining the general meaning.
 * "denied the state's necessary party motion and motion to dismiss." - I think most people know what a motion to dismiss is. But to understand a "necessary party motion", I would have to read what a "necessary party" is (I think I know) and figure out how the state was using "necessary party" in a motion in this particular case. I could probably do that fairly easily, if it isn't too involved, but am I willing to go through the article reading every link and then figure out how the term is being used legally in this particular case? Especially since I don't have a particularly legal mind.
 * Is there a way to explain what is happening in plain terms especially in the lede where you want to give the general overall picture? Or else, yes, explain what the terms mean. Law is like a separate language, like math, and if general readers aren't unfamiliar, then they are shut out from learning about this interesting issue of the history of Native Americans and their lands vs the states and federal government. (For example, we've all heard about the casinos, but we don't know the route to their coming into existence.) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Land transfers is fine, I suppose. I'm not interested in defining "necessary party" in the intro, but I have added more in the body. As for a general overall pictures, I thought I did that. Savidan 03:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and OR
There are some sourcing and OR problems that I am finding - this is very common in articles dealing with court cases. Court documents are primary sources and hence should be used with the utmost care, if at all - this article relies exclusively on court documents it seems. The one non court document reference Vecsey & Starna 1988 is not used even once (which also makes me suspect probably copyvio problems since if the source has indeed been consulted it should figure as a citation in the text). Definitely it is always to be considered OR to make any kind of evaluation or conclusion of primary sources that is not also sourced to secondary sources. The article does this in a number of places - for example when it states that Narragansett II is called into question by the Coeur d"Alene vs Idaho case referring to the court document of that case. This is clear OR and such a statement cannot be made unless a reliable secondary source interprets the Coeur D'Alene case as doing such. Furthermore the source is a link to the wikipedia article on the Coeur D'Alene case - which is not to be considered a source at all. I will be looking over the article with an eye to such problems - but basically I would consider these problems a reason for quickfailing the article if I were reviewing it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not original research to cite a published legal opinion. To do so neither states a claim "for which no reliable, published sources exist" nor "serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" (see WP:NOR). Secondary sources are needed for analysis and commentary, but not for the facts and holding of a case. The citation you mention is to the Supreme Court's decision in Coeur D'Alene, not the Wikipedia article. Nor is there any copyright violation here. No text has been copied from V&S without attribution. Copyright law does not yield the absurd proposition that: "if you look at a source, you must include multiple in-line footnotes to it." Savidan 08:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No but it is original research to mak any evaluation or interpretation of that legal opinion. Does the Coeur d'Alene case make any mention on its possible bearings on the Narragansett II case - that is hard for me to believe. That means that it is an valuation of the document to say that it has any bearings on that case. No merely looking of cours does not require sourcing - but it is hard to believe that you have not used the source as background for the article. It is probably not copyvio, that was an exaggeration I admit, but if it follows the V&S source without direct attribution it is plagiarism and wuld for example get you in trouble in an acadmic essay. In anycase it is quite clear that wikipedia articles should rely mostly on secondary and tertiary sources and not on primary sources - this article currently has no references to secondary sources at all. That is not what we expect from a Good Article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please cease assuming bad faith. I used it for the one thing that is footnoted, and included it accordingly. It is entirely improper to accuse others of copyright violations and plagiarism with no foundation at all. As for additional secondary sources, if you can suggest any secondary sources that I am missing, I will add them. Savidan 16:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I came across as assuming bad faith - I am not - iI am quite convinced that you are editing in good faith and that any possible plagiarism issues would be unintentional (which I admit i have no evidence for - but the lack of secondary sources are suggestive). I cannot suggest any secondary sources - because this is not a topic I am very familiar with. I know where I would look to find them (for example in the references of S&V 1988). But if anything the lack of secondary sources simply suggest that this is not a suitable topic for a detailed article. If I were reviewing this article (I came here with that in mind) I would not promote it untill it relied at least as much on secondary souces as on primary ones. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way notice that the OR policy quite clearly states "do not base articles entirely on primary sources". This is a basic policy that the article of course needs to follow if evaluated for GA.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First, published opinions are not primary sources within the meaning of that policy. The example given is an "account of a traffic accident written by a witness." That sounds more like the transcript of a trial (or a brief submitted by a party), than the opinion of the court. If both the judge and the New York Times reporter watch the witness testify, there is no reason why Wikipedia should permit the latter's account but not the former's. Second, that policy does not prohibit the use of primary sources, only interpretive claims based on primary sources. This article uses indisputably secondary/tertiary sources when it makes interpretive claims; for example, that the case was the "first of the eastern land claims to be settled." Savidan 02:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, court opinions are official documents expressing the court's opinion, and not secondary sources about what happens in a court. A NYT article would be a secondary source- the opinion is not - because it includes evaluation of the events whereas the court opinions is basically an act of law - not a description of an event. Policy cearly prohibits articles based entirely on primary sources and states that use of primary sources must be sparing. Primary sources does for example not establish notability - only secondary sources does this. And thirdly the article does make interretive claims based on primary sources and therfore engages in OR. This is definitely an interesting and important article - but it does not live up to the GA standard.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)